Twickenham, we have a problem

Encouraging win for England at Murrayfield. But if England are going to beat Ireland at HQ in a fortnight then Stuart Lancaster is going to have to tinker with his bench...

• Rob Webber in for Tom Youngs
• Davy Wilson (if fit) in for Henry Thomas
• George Ford in for Brad Barritt
• Anthony Watson in for Alex Goode

Six Nations 2014: Behind the Scenes at England Rugby #3

More guff and nonsense during the build up to another Six Nations weekend.

England enter The Matrix

It appears that the RFU and O2 are launching a “Wear the Rose” 360-degree virtual reality headset that recreates England rugby squad training experience.

According to the blurb the headset allows the wearer to participate in drills directed by Mike Catt and team talks from Chris Robshaw, as well feel what it is like to be tackled by Tom Youngs or receive a pass from Mike Brown.

Unfortunately the technology is unable to replicate what it feels like to be tackled by Alex Goode owing to a shortage of data.

Six Nations: SRU claim criticism of Murrayfield pitch is unfounded

Six Nations: Burning Issue of the Week

Here's a new series of posts designed to provoke intellectually stimulating debate.

So, first up, the burning issue for this week is this:

Will JONNY MAY'S NOSE be fit to face Scotland?

And, more importantly, how does he smell?

(All together now)…BLOODY TERRIBLE!!! :)

And another thing...

The England camp appear to be bemoaning their failure to "close out the game" against France.

What on earth does "close out the game" mean?

From what I saw on Saturday it largely meant kicking the ball to the French - an interesting tactic given that they had spent the previous 30 minutes denying France possession.

Just saying.

The morning after...

Having slept on it I have come to the inescapable conclusion that England's defeat in Paris yesterday, narrow as it was, was almost entirely of their own making.

Not only were the first couple of French tries of the somewhat soft variety from a defensive perspective, having hauled themselves back into the game and established a winning position, England then promptly shot themselves in the foot.

Instead of continuing with the dynamic and direct ball-in-hand rugby that had seen them dominate the 3rd quarter, England appeared to switch to defensive mode, attempting to contain France and defend a 5 point lead - a ploy which ultimately failed.

The England cause also wasn't helped by the seemingly obligatory emptying of the bench. Yes, Ben Morgan and Tom Youngs made inroads into the French defence, but the control that England had exerted for previous 30 minutes was lost and the French were able to re-establish not only momentum but, crucially, self-belief.

The rest, as they say, is history - and I only hope that England learn from this.

Meanwhile, in Cardiff, Italy showed again that they are no longer pushovers in this tournament whilst Wales were very, very, ordinary. On this form there will be no third straight championship for the men in red - although having said that Wales were still several notches above their performance in the  opening fixture last year and we all know what happened then...

A question of experience

Much is being made of the inexperience of the England backline selected to take on France in Paris this afternoon.

With the likes of Luther Burrell and Jack Nowell making their debuts and with Johnny May and Billy Twelvetrees still in single figures as far as international caps are concerned, I'm sure the naysayers will be out in force should England lose.

'Too callow, too green, too young' will be the call, led no doubt from the sports pages of the Sunday Times.

Of course, what no one has an answer to is this: how on earth are players supposed to gain experience if they are not selected to play?

Just saying.

Six Nations 2014: Behind the scenes at England Rugby #2

Pennyhill Park recreational facilities for England squad revealed:

Six Nations 2014: Behind the Scenes at England Rugby

England tactics revealed

England boss Stuart Lancaster is said to be incandescent with fury at reports that his key tactic for England’s assault on this year’s Six Nations tournament has been leaked.

Reports emerged yesterday of England players being issued with ground-breaking “invisibility cloaks” developed secretly by England kit manufacturer, Canterbury.

The cloaks, which have been in development behind closed doors for nearly 12 months, are said to mask the England players both from their opponents and match officials and were set to make their debut appearance in Paris next week.

“It was felt that something had to be done following the disastrous defeat in Cardiff last year,” said our secret source at the RFU.

“We believe the cloaks offer us an edge. It’s all about 1% increments.

“We’ve checked, and there is nothing in the Laws that say a player must be visible.”

Semesa Rokoduguni, that's easy for you to say

The standout name in an exciting looking England Saxons squad announced yesterday today was Semasa Rokoduguni.

The Fijian-born Rokoduguni is a member of the British Army in the Royal Dragoon Guards. He qualifies for England on residency grounds, so England are perfectly entitled to select him.

The problem for me is simple – he’s Fijian, he should be playing for Fiji, and playing for the Saxons will rule him out of playing for his country of birth in the future.

And before anyone mentions it – no, it’s not the same as the selection of Vunipola brothers or of Manu Tuilagi – all of whom came through the English schools system.

Flood warning

Toby Flood's apparent decision to play his rugby in France next season - probably with Toulouse - is a strange one.

Yes, he'll get paid shedloads of money. And yes, living in the south of France may have its advantages over living in Leicestershire. But with a World Cup in England less than 2 years away it seems bizarre that Flood would effectively rule himself out of England contention given Stuart Lancaster's stated policy on overseas-based players.

Flood's decision also puts his spot in England's 6 Nations squad in jeopardy. After all, why would Lancaster include someone who will be unavailable to him for the next two years?

5 things we learned from the November internationals

I’ve seen this sort of thing done by real journalists on proper websites so thought I’d give it a go – how hard can it be…?

1.       New Zealand are the best team in the history of the universe between World Cups. It’s undeniable. The facts speak for themselves. 

2.       England are better than any country in the World at keeping their powder dry. Why reveal your attacking strategy 2 years out from the World Cup when you can keep everyone guessing? J 

3.       South Africa are the team that everyone will want to avoid in the 2015 World Cup knockout stages. 

4.       It’s not a mental thing preventing Wales from taking a southern hemisphere scalp. It’s just that, in the absence of one tight-head prop and two centres, they’re really not that good. 

5.       Quade Cooper is a genius and Australia will win the World Cup in 2015. You heard it here first.

Thought for the day

Can you imagine the flak Stuart Lancaster would be taking had England performed as poorly as Wales did against Tonga last night?

10 years...10 LONG years

Blimey. Just watched the re-un of the 2003 RWC Final.



How good were England? By a huge margin the better team - hadn't quite realised how easily we should have won that match. Yes, Australia hung in and kicked their points but they should never have been in with a shout.

Despite it being 10 years on and me knowing the result, I was pretty much shitting myself as the game progressed and extra time was almost as unbearable as it was back in 2003.

Thank heavens for Saint Jonny at the death. Absolutely bloody brilliant. How can anyone possibly deal with that kind of pressure?


A couple of mentions:

- Hats off big time to Elton Flatley - balls of steel.

- Andre Watson's performance gets no better with the passage of time.

And finally - surely that must be it? Believe me, 2003 was utterly fantastic but, as I've mentioned before, surely now it's done and dusted. Of course it isn't. The only way to forget the past is to win the bloody thing again.

2015. Game on.

November internationals 2013 - weekend verdict on 'home' nations

ENGLAND - close but no cigar. Still, progress made and arguably a sprinkling of stardust away from being a very good team indeed. Still a way to go though.

WALES - lauded for scoring 4 tries against Argentina. England were castigated for doing the same last week. Go figure.

SCOTLAND - seriously, how can you expect to beat anyone when you're dressed like a badminton team?

IRELAND - oh dear.

The Total Flanker Guide to: Beating the All Blacks

Everyone else seems to be doing it so here they are, my top 5 tips to guarantee England victory over the All Blacks this weekend:

1. Score more points than they do;

2, 3, 4 & 5. See above.

All Blacks to premier "New Haka" against England

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

There's just no pleasing some people

A comfortable win against Argentina following a not so comfortable but still well deserved victory over the Aussies last week clearly just isn't enough for some people.

To put things in context, a year ago England were losing to Australia while Argentina were beating Wales, so the last 2 weeks' results are nothing to be sniffed at.

We're constantly told by the great and the good of rugby journalism that, for England, the result is everything and that heroic defeat is no longer enough. So why moan when the result is delivered?

Yes it might be said that Australia and Argentina were poor this November. And yet the Aussies still stuck 50 on Italy and it remains to be seen what we'll see from Argentina in the coming weeks.

It might also be claimed that England have so far lacked fluency. Face it - it happens. The trick is to find a way to win when all is not going to plan. England have done precisely that.

England are clearly not the finished article, nor are they the All Blacks - but when, I ask, have they ever claimed to be?

And so to the ultimate challenge next week as the apparently unbeatable New Zealanders come to town. England start as rank outsiders, it seems.

Game on.

The Scrum - a question.

Even with a beefed up front row I expect England to come under some pressure from the Pumas' 'bajada' at Twickenham on Saturday.

Here's a question, however - could someone please explain why referees always feel the need to penalise a retreating scrum?

You've just been propelled backwards at a rate of knots, the opposition no 8 has the ball nicely under control, the whistle blows and, having extracted your head from your arse, you look up to find that the referee has rubbed salt in the wound by awarding a penalty against you.

It happened on several occasions last week with the Australians penalised with the ball still at Billy Vunipola's feet, and is now a staple part of every professional rugby match I watch. The ball is put in, the scrum is driven (not necessarily in that order) and the back-peddling scrum penalised.

For most offences referees will allow the game to continue for an eternity while they wait for an advantage to occur but never, it seems, at scrum time. With one pack splintered and in disarray you would have thought, wouldn't you, that the other pack might at least be given the opportunity to use the possession they have worked so hard for?

The problem with such an argument is that, for many teams, the scrum is no longer a means of gaining possession of the ball - it is simply a way of generating a penalty.

The consequence of this approach, which appears to be aided and abetted by compliant refereeing, is that the game becomes somewhat skewed. The team with the stronger scrum can take risks, knowing that a dropped pass will result in a scrum and, in all likelihood, a penalty, whilst the team with the weaker scrum simply can't afford to make a mistake and has very little chance of establishing any kind of foothold in the game.

I'm not sure what the answer is. Not punishing offending players could (and probably would) create a cheat's charter. At its essence, however, the scrum is supposed to be about restarting the game and, whilst I do believe that it should be a contest, I'm not sure that losing such a contest should automatically incur a penalty - after all, if you are losing the scrum contest the initiative is in the hands of your opponents and you are already firmly on the back foot.

Might punishing offences at the scrum with a free kick be the answer?

Answers on the back of a postcard...

Ramblings of a mad man

"gabble, babble, gibber, jabber"

Amidst the not very helpful criticism being directed towards the England team by former coach Sir Clive Woodward, is a declaration that he is not in favour of England players wearing "high-visibility, multi-coloured boots."

If Sir Clive were still in charge all players would wear black footwear ... (I’m with you so far Clive)…except the back three who, apparently, should wear white (huh?)

Whereas my own reasons for banning coloured boots centre around the fact that they make the players look like dicks (FACT), Sir Clive believes that there is a scientific basis for his argument, namely that luminous boots are far more likely to be spotted in an offside position by the referee.

Furthermore, wingers and fullbacks should wear while boots, he says, so that the officials can’t spot them putting a foot on the touchline. Apparently the white detail on Mike Brown’s boots were a decisive factor against the Aussies at the weekend.

Taking things one stage further, Sir Clive also claims in his regular column in the Daily Fail that England should switch kit manufacturers to Madam Malkin's of Diagon Alley who can provide the England players with shirts made of the same material as previously used for Harry Potter’s invisibility cloak.